Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 21:29:20 No. 658193
Stalin was right as always, Tito was a bourgeois nationalist.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 21:36:55 No. 658198
>Or is truth somewhere in the middle?
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:05:32 No. 658215
Tito, of course. While Stalin was restoring capitalism with his PMC beuraucratic party, Tito introduced worker-control of workspaces, literally a more fundamental thing of socialism that the USSR never achieved because of "muh productive forces muh industry".
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:11:17 No. 658217
>>658215 Socialism is about productivity not workers controlling shit.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:17:25 No. 658222
>>658188 btw, is it true that Tito wanted to attack Albania?
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:29:58 No. 658228
Stalin was a cuck and rejected marxism-Titoism. Later he tried to kill Tito but failed.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:31:42 No. 658230
>>658215 The Soviet bureaucracy was anti "Stalinist" and "worker control" is a misdirection. But really all Yugoslavia did was give control to managers to compete with each other, i.e. what the Khrushchevites with their peasant-bourgeois warping of socialism.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:47:22 No. 658240
>>658230 "tito" re-introduced market mechanisms and elements of capitalism that both seriously harmed the economy and caused Yugoslavia to have the highest unemployment rate compared to every nation in the warsaw pact. They also aligned themselves cynically inbetween the west and the socialist nations to pursue national aggrandizement at the expense of the socialist cause and laid down the seeds for a split in the socialist camp. Also IMF loans. Also barred Greek communists from travelling over the border into Yugoslavia. Total piece of shit.
>>658228 "He" wasn't a cuck at all. Should have assasinated tito though.
>>658215 Worker's control meant nothing good, it was pure idealism, these people were coming out of feudalism, many were illiterate, the planning was terrible and shortsighted.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:50:00 No. 658246
>>658240 I meant to add, the market elements also helped contribute to the breakup of yugoslavia by ensuring uneven development of the different republics.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:51:14 No. 658248
>>658240 Tried failed didnt have the ballsacks to attack. Tito was the only Eastern European leader to cuck Stalin and this certainly made him seethe.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:54:52 No. 658253
>>658234 Not bait. "Worker control" is something anti-communists love to prattle on about. It's a talking point for them because it means nothing. Ignore the huge number of proletarians trained in the USSR to carry out the Five Year Plans of the Stalin period, and just talk drivel about how muh bureaucracy (who fought against proletarian advancement in the Stalin period) controlled everything. In fact, even the Khrushchevites couldn't fuly topple Soviet proletarian power until Perestroika despite the Kosygin degeneration.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:55:51 No. 658255
>>658248 I would hardly call not dying cucking. He did cuck the Soviet bloc by pretending to be a socialist until he got power and then doing all that wrecking against the socialist bloc.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 22:58:09 No. 658257
>>658255 I would call trying to kill and failing as failing. Tito didnt like this so he removed Yugoslavia from Warsaw Pact to form his own Tito Pact just to make the georgian seethe.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:04:38 No. 658264
>>658257 Yugoslavia was already breaking from the socialist bloc at that point. I disagree with the Soviet's methof of keeping other nations on the socialist alignment and their own national chauvinism but yugoslavia 100 percent needed to be reeled in, it never should have gotten to that point.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:13:35 No. 658278
>>658269 Tito and Stalin were both revisonists but Tito was much worse and actively contributed to the fall of socialilism worldwide. Also it was cliques of bureaucrats not just one leader here or there.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:15:04 No. 658283
>>658278 Marx was reincarnated in the spirit of Tito when the bullshit was taken too far.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:15:18 No. 658284
>>658253 >"Worker control" is something anti-communists love to prattle on about. Youre the most genius masterb8er on this whole website, truly.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:18:55 No. 658286
Who cares? Neither tendency is alive or in governance
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:19:52 No. 658288
>>658285 Workers didn't control shit, market dynamics did. This is Gorbachev tier sophism
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:20:11 No. 658289
>>658286 yeah, but from the perspective of historiography it is interesting
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:23:26 No. 658294
>>658289 This, plus these sorts of dilemas will come up in the future as well.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:25:53 No. 658296
>>658294 The sorts of dillemmas that the current grneration face are vastly different than anything before it, none of the history can teach us or illuminate anything.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:30:34 No. 658301
>>658188 >Who was right in this conflict? Every single split was retarded. China vs USSR, Yugoslavia vs USSR, China vs Albania…every single one. These splits accelerated the end of the Cold War immensely. You didn't see capitalists brutally opposing each other during the Cold War just because they had different ideas of how to rule a country. Like there wasn't the SCANDINAVIAN-SAUDI split or some bullshit.
The core reason for all these splits is nationalism. Not ideology, not muh revisionism which is the biggest cope of all time, but nationalism. Mao, who accused others of revisionism, went on to be the cuckboy of Nixon, so this shows you that this was just an excuse to sell it to their gullible population.
Why did socialists engage in such nationalism? Simple: Under capitalism, it is the capitalists who have the most power, not the politicians. Capitalists have always used globalism to their advantage. Karl Marx talks about it the critique of the Gotha Program:
Capitalists know no nation, their only allegiance is to money. They will go wherever they can earn money. This is how you end up with guys like Jeff Bezos paying zero dollars in personal taxes, companies like Facebook being set up in Ireland, bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, factories in China…they recognize that capitalism needs globalism and do everything they can to do so.
But what about socialist countries? Well, in socialist countries, the politicians reign supreme over the entrepreneurs (or whatever is left of them). However, other than international trade and economics, politics is chiefly a national question, as Marx also states:
Therefore, people like Rockefeller had power potentially across the world, whereas someone like Tito had power mostly inside Yugoslavia. So what do the politicians do? Any attempt at internationalist policy gets struck down by them. COMECON economies barely collaborated, they were against an internationalist division of labor, Stalin wanted other countries to follow his line, Mao had his own petty grievances with Stalin over past issues, Tito felt slighted about the Greece issue and his market model not being accepted…it was all about nationalist politicians not being able to have their visions contested.
Therefore, in the future, whatever socialist movement may arise:
Picture related.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:32:28 No. 658304
>>658296 >none of the history can teach us or illuminate anything Retard. There are patterns in everything. With enough data to compare you can make predictions about almost anything.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:34:52 No. 658306
>>658301 Absolutely lovely post i like it but in the end Tito and his Yugoslavian internationalism was proven right.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:36:28 No. 658307
>>658306 What do you mean with Yugoslavian internationalism? For example them being in the Non-Aligned Movement?
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:36:56 No. 658308
>>658304 >There are patterns in everything There's also context
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:37:27 No. 658309
>>658307 National brotherhood no matter language, ethnicity nor religion.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:37:38 No. 658311
>>658301 Very good post. Do you have any examples of communist parties that are more interested in internationalism?
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:37:45 No. 658312
>>658240 >Also barred Greek communists from travelling over the border into Yugoslavia Yeah after Stalin demanded he not help them Yet they still sided with the Soviets in the split like a bunch of simps.
>>658278 Come on m8, Yugo neutrality was hardly a significant factor in the downfall of the USSR. The split with China was a MUCH bigger blow.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:38:15 No. 658313
>>658301 >You didn't see capitalists brutally opposing each other during the Cold War just because they had different ideas of how to rule a country. Like there wasn't the SCANDINAVIAN-SAUDI split or some bullshit. mate there were massive conflicts between sk and japan regarding their political and economic systems vs the us
the only reason that went nowhere was because the us dominated these two countries but that doesnt change the fact there was huge fighting between them
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:42:31 No. 658317
>>658312 >Yeah after Stalin demanded he not help them Yet they still sided with the Soviets in the split like a bunch of simps. No the yugos aligned with the west.
>Come on m8, Yugo neutrality was hardly a significant factor in the downfall of the USSR. The split with China was a MUCH bigger blow. Yugoslavia helped lay the seeds for the Sino-Soviet split.
>>658309 So national chauvinism, what a load of dog shit. There was also uneven development among the republics thanks to market dynamics, that helped precipitate the civil war. That isn't internationalism at all and you gailed to grasp the point of anons post. Touch grass.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:44:41 No. 658322
>>658313 and i didnt word these correctly so let me make it more clear.
the us and japan fought each other regarding their political and economic systems during the 1960s-1980s.
and the reason why a split didnt happen was not because of capitalist muh unity but rather because of us domination.
the same thing happened between sk and us during the 1970s and 1980s
where sk and us fought each other due to political and economic reasons, to the point the park guy may have actually decided to split south korea from us influence
tho that probably wouldnt have happened due to us domination
in these two scenarios the capitalists brutally attacked, demonized and tried to ruin each other(well the us side tried to do this more) and the only reason why unity was remained was because of us sphere of influence and etc
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:47:10 No. 658324
>>658317 >>658313 >mate there were massive conflicts between sk and japan regarding their political and economic systems vs the us Yeah but they never diverged into competing geopolitical blocs. The US didn't even really do much when France left NATO, imagine if they had done what the Soviets did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and invaded them. Would this have strengthened or weakened NATO in the long term? Probably the latter.
>>658301 >No the yugos aligned with the west. Not unless you unironically think that not bring aligned with the Soviets is the same as being aligned with the West. The Yugos wanted to help the Greek communists, Moscow forbade it due to their agreement with the Anglos to cede Greece to their sphere of influence.
>Yugoslavia helped lay the seeds for the Sino-Soviet split. I agree. Soviet great power chauvinism alienated the Chinese in the same way it alienated the Yugoslavians.
>>658301 Great post. Each split obviously involved real grievances on both sides, but it's a colossal failure of all involved to allow these differences to take on an antagonistic character.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:52:41 No. 658332
>>658309 Yes, I do agree there. Nationalism destroyed the Balkans and all we got from it were lousy YouTube flame wars (just kidding).
>>658311 I hate them in political practice because of their sect-like organizing, but Trotskyists regularly criticized Stalin about this. However, I do absolutely understand the need for *socialism in one country* that arose in the 1920s - 1940s. The USSR had enough trouble rebuilding their country and collectivizing, so it didn't need negative attention from the West impeding this. However, in my opinion, the situation was drastically different from the 1950s on and the USSR could have pursued a more egalitarian and internationalist foreign policy. Marx himself was very vocal in the need for internationalism, Cockshott has a chapter on how internationalist economic co-operation between socialist countries could look like which is worth a read:
http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf (page 147 in the PDF).
>>658313 Japan and South Korea signed a reconciliation treaty in 1965 so I'm not convinced that any schisms in the capitalist world at the time were as severe as the socialist ones. Especially the Sino-Soviet split was vicious, the more you read about it the more insane it gets. I mean China invaded Vietnam. The US politicians like Kissinger were probably laughing their ass off every time the Soviets and Chinese butted heads in the 70s.
>>658317 >So national chauvinism, what a load of dog shit. I don't think internationalism requires the repudiation of patriotism and other spooks that help countries hold together. I am not talking about the market economy here which I disagree with just like you, but this is precisely the point: We should be fine that different countries try out different solutions and can still be considered socialist without having to throw out accusations like cultists. I will also say that yes, my post was meant about foreign relations first and foremost and not about civic nationalism within a multi-ethnic country.
>>658322 Capitalists had the European Community, the IMF, the World Bank. All of these institutions had far deeper co-operation than anything the communist world had. Comecon especially was a joke when you consider what potential it had. The different Internationales (like the cultural ones such as the Communist Youth International were not supported after WW2 unfortunately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Youth_International >>658324 >Each split obviously involved real grievances on both sides Yes, I agree. I recently read a Chinese political scientist say that the Sino-Soviet split helped the collapse of the USSR. I wonder, if we could ask them, how the Chinese really think about this split in hindsight. Obviously they will defend Mao and Deng's decisions just because those are their guys, but I do wonder if they ever pondered about alternative timelines in which the USSR and China never fell out with each other.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:55:17 No. 658337
>>658324 Okay fair enough, Yugoslavia wasn't quite aligned with the west but the IMF loans were cringe and I thought they collaborated with the CIA at some point or something but I could very well be simply misremembering. Also the third worldism thing was cringe and basically encouraged socialist nations to tolerate capitalist states.
Anonymous 2021-12-23 (Thu) 23:59:43 No. 658342
>>658337 >but the IMF loans were cringe Unfortunately, this was not just what Yugoslavia did. Romania or Bulgaria, I forget which one, also had very high debts, as did East Germany and Albania. Recently I tried to understand better what mindset the socialist parties around the world had in the late 70s and early 80s that led to all of this market-insanity. Was neoliberalism *that* much convincing? Couldn't people see through the charade of neoliberalism at the time? Didn't they understand that whatever IMF loans they get will be linked with "structural reform demands", i.e. opening up the economy to foreign porkies? Or were the leaders well aware of this market-gamble and intentionally wrecked the socialist system?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 00:00:59 No. 658343
>>658324 > competing geopolitical blocs. the reason why i believe this is because the us pretty much dominated the west alligned countries to the point they couldnt really seperate into competing geopolitical blocs.
japan and korea were in many ways puppet states(even tho they kinda werent its complicated) due to how much influence the us had in these two countries. Aka set up us bases, set up us friendly puppet govs in the beginning and etc.
and its kind off simmilar to the situation in europe too, us occupation, us reconstruction, marshall plan and etc
Meanwhile in the case of the soviet union, china was never trully under soviet influence, yugoslavia never relied that much on soviet aid, and etc
meanwhile for the countries that the soviet did occupy and have lots of influence in, those countries stayed usually soviet alligned and etc
im not advocating for occupation but pointing out why the geopolitical splits seem to realistically happen and it seems to be a case of dominating the other country and forcing them to remain in your sphere
>>658332 yeah uh sorry about that, i didnt phrase my comment correctly, what i meant to say the schism between us and korea, and the schism between us and japan. I clarified this in the next comment under that original comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Youth_International yeah that is true but it should be noted that there were also conflicts in the application of the imf world bank too.
like sk heavily resisting and ignoring the advice of western institutions like the world bank or imf, and relying on japan instead to overstep or ignore these institutions.
tho funnily enough japan would later try to backstab and demonize sk companies like posco because they didnt realize posco steel would be that succesful
but yeah i do see your point about the comecon and how odd it was that the soviets failed to do some form of unity.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 00:22:42 No. 658364
good posts
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 00:42:43 No. 658382
How much of these splits can we really chalk up to malice and true disagreements and how much can we chalk up to them just trying to play increasingly complex games of geopolitical 3D chess and failing? Maybe the line between the two just got blurred and after Stalin died they all lost the plot.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 00:52:22 No. 658384
>>658382 I mean theres also the other factor and that seems to be geography population, and history. Like unlike some other posters in this site i think the sino soviet split was always likely going to fucking happen, for one reason, because theres no way these two countries can share one deep group of alliance. You have russia a country that has a smaller population, less habitual areas, and etc trying to form a united alliance with a country china thats has a way larger population and way bigger habitual areas. like already in 1960 russias population was only 166 million while chinas population was over 600 million. Also theres the historical shit too with china having the whole national humilation from imperialism. No way was china going to play second fiddle in an alliance with the soviets, and thus the soviets would be forced to compromise with china. But the problem with compromise is that compromise can lead to many disagreements and conflicts especially since china and soviet russia had different geo political areas of interests.
like perhaps some degree of national alliance could have happened but it would have been a very distant one, kinda like the alliance we are seeing in russia and china today.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 06:07:46 No. 658681
Tito was fascistic. Yugoslavia fared better than Spain, but only because Yugoslavia wasn't shunned by all sides and thus traded goods all over the place. Even then Yugoslavia's economy was shit to the point of relying on their gastarbeiters in Europe to help out their families in Yugoslavia itself. As soon as USSR fell, there was no longer a need for Yugoslavia as a kind of a counter to USSR. Moreso, Yugoslavia was supporting Hungarian fascists in 1956, southern regions of Hungary were mentioned as being influenced by CIA's comrades in recent CIA declassified stuff about the whole thing. Meaning either France or Britain had a free hand in smuggling weapons and fighters across the southern Hungarian border.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 09:27:19 No. 658765
>>658193 None of this was the point. Yugoslavia just didn't want to be a satelite. And Stalin got mad about their position.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 09:47:33 No. 658770
>>658301 Based and non-sectarian pilled
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 12:17:14 No. 658806
>>658284 You can find dullards like Solzhenitsyn prattling on about "worker control". Guess what, it just means the bourgeoisie actually controlling a disjointed, non-planned system of capitalist competition, corruption, profiteering.
Bolshevik planning is truly proletarian.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 12:19:29 No. 658808
>>658765 >Yugoslavia just didn't want to be a satelite Or translated from Nazish, a part of an allied block of socialist republics, so it whipped up nationalism against proletarian internationalism. Loads of communists who opposed this were arrested and some executed in Yugoslavia from 1948 onwards.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 12:20:44 No. 658809
>>658808 What nationalism, lol. Yugoslavia was multiethnic and nationalism started with the counterevolutionaries in the 2nd half of the 80s.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 12:31:05 No. 658818
>>658809 >nationalism just appeared out of nowhere in a few years that's not how ideologies work
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 13:05:21 No. 658842
>>658384 >Also theres the historical shit too Somehow Britain, Germany, and France manage to stick together as part of the Western Bloc despite all the historical animosity with each other.
>>658813 I really have to say Lenin hat, it's truly astounding how you always find a way to blame dead people and foreign leaders for the internal problems that the USSR, instead of you know, the people who were actually running it.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 13:15:19 No. 658849
>>658842 because the us was there, and essestionally occupied france and split germany, while at the same time even setting up what was basically a pro us vassal state in west germany.
meanwhile britain had no choice but to tag along because its empire had become non existant especially after the suez canal and thus uk had no choice but to play second fiddle or become irrevelent in the grand scheme
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 14:25:36 No. 658907
>>658842 These trends were of course present in the USSR and the Stalin period saw a largely successful offensive against these ideas, in the late 1920s, late 1930s and circa 1950. Tito added fuel to the fire and gave them an outlet for their ideas, much as the denunciation of Stalin in 1956 gave a second wind to anticommunists worldwide.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 15:43:14 No. 658998
>>658222 Not attack but peacefully annex. There was a powerful pro-Yugoslav movement in Albania before the Tito-Stalin split and many anti-Yugoslavs were purged (although this was allegedly done by the pro-Yugoslav faction rather than by Hoxha).
>>658342 Ceausescu had taken massive loans from the IMF and had to put Romania in austerity because he was a right-deviator as well; for much of his rule, the majority of the resistance to his policies came from groups to the left of him. And although I can't say anything about the GDR, Albania didn't take any foreign loans until 1990 (the loans they took beforehand from China and the USSR were repudiated as Hoxha split from them) and it didn't join the IMF until late 1991. As for the reason for taking on IMF loans, my guess is as good as any. Personally, I think it was a method of gaining economic independence from the USSR, so one's nation wouldn't be so dependent on aid from the CMEA. Then the IMF increased interest rates which forced Romania into austerity and nations like Yugoslavia and Poland into mass privatizations (which, in turn, lead to nationalism and the breakup of Yugoslavia), much to the surprise of reformist elements. The socialists of yesterday were too trusting towards neoliberalism, it's our duty to learn from their example and prevent a repeat of the past.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:27:01 No. 659037
The whole Leninist concept of self determination and nationhood lends itself to splits along, you guessed it, national lines. Instead of freeing nations from capitalism it delivers them right to it and weakens class consciousness, weakens each communist party until they turn neoliberal.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:29:16 No. 659038
>>659037 Part of the problem is that national identities can't simply be suppressed, and refusing to grant acknowledgement and self-determination leaves intact existing chauvinism and prejudice. So while the Leninist approach to self determination can lead to Balkanization, not doing it can lead to the perpetuation of chauvinism (which in turn fuels ethnic separatism).
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:30:33 No. 659040
>>659037 Which is to say that the Soviet Union shouod have annexed China and the Warsaw pact, making them each Soviet Reoublics, becoming an actual international government instead of one geopolitical bloc competing with the west, which essentially acts as a one world government with Capital the algorithm at its head.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:33:08 No. 659043
>>659038 >national identities can't simply be suppressed They don't need to be suppressed, but it doesn't belong in government either. Communism does and will mean all national identiries will die off as there's no economic basis for them.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:35:02 No. 659046
>>659038 You have to smash the national identies of both colonizers/dominators and of the colonized/victims, only a synthesis of the two can survive the transition into a new non-national communist identity.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:37:13 No. 659047
>>659043 >They don't need to be suppressed, but it doesn't belong in government either. So should national minorities not receive recognition and protection for their language or culture?
>Communism does and will mean all national identiries will die off as there's no economic basis for them. Honestly that's impossible to say. Ethnic and in/out group distinctions predate class societies, and even if they do dissappear, we have no idea how long it will take. I think that refusing to grapple with a problem because of the assumption that it will simply dissappear is a huge mistake.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:38:59 No. 659051
Tito was an Ustase wannabe and ardent anti communist. The first chance he got he cucked out to the west, using the money gained to foster dissent in the Warsaw Pact and oppress the Serbian population
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:40:10 No. 659053
>>659047 >national minorities not receive recognition and protection for their language or culture? Sure, but they aren't getting a reoublic of their own, communism is a one world republic project, the age of nations is over, there is inly capital and humanity.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:43:11 No. 659057
>>659051 If Saddam Hussein cries at your funeral you're probably a piece of shit yeah
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:44:45 No. 659058
>>659047 >So should national minorities not receive recognition and protection for their language or culture? If said “national identity” has a history of reactionary behavior (Ukrainians, Tibetans, Cossacks, etc) then they absolutely should be phased out and their populations assimilated into more revolutionary cultures
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:46:52 No. 659061
>>659058 This exact chauvanism is why you cannot preserve one culture atthe expense of another, they all have to go
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:50:56 No. 659067
>>659057 That was one of Saddam’s few missteps
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:53:09 No. 659069
>>659061 What you call “chauvinism” I call “looking to history”. Ukrainians are an artificial ethnicity of reactionary border Russians who have sabotaged the revolution at every turn. Is it any coincidence that the arch-traitor Khruschev, key player in the fall of the Soviet Union, identified as Ukrainian?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:56:30 No. 659074
>>659069 If you look to history to decide the future you will never break with history, the point of communism is a full break from the chains of our history
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:58:08 No. 659078
>>659070 I'm actually Khomeini
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 16:58:12 No. 659079
>>659053 I don't think that's a terrible idea. Part of what made the dissolution of the USSR and SFRY so easy was the fact that each group aspiring to independence already had an intact state apparatus that could form the basis of their new government. It would have been much more difficult if they had to construct one from scratch.
>>659058 So we should elevate national chauvinism to state policy?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:33:04 No. 659137
>>659074 And the only way to break history is to eliminate the reactionary cultures that wish to drag us back into the mud, as the Soviets and Chinese are doing
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:35:01 No. 659142
>>659137 How do you distinguish a reactionary nation from a progressive one?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:36:33 No. 659145
>>659079 It’s called patriotism. Some people are inherently better than others at building a socialist state and they should be lauded for it, not shamed
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:36:40 No. 659146
>>659137 Either all culture is reactionary or it is all worth preserving, doing this middle bullshit is national chauvanism and what kept us from communism in the 20th century
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:37:10 No. 659149
>>659145 Shut the fuck up fashoid
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:39:22 No. 659154
>>659146 What kept us from communism was letting reactionary cultures grow unchecked. Stalin grew soft on the Ukrainians after WW2, and as a result one of Trotsky’s very own agents managed to accomplish the long game of assassinating one of the greatest men the world has ever know. Had Stalin gone hardline and forcefully made them become Russians again, we may very well have a full Communist state today
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:40:43 No. 659156
>>659154 You understand that Ukraine underwent its own revolution in 1918, and that there were far more Ukrainians fighting for the Soviets than Nazi collaborators right?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:40:55 No. 659157
>>659149 >not embracing self-defeating cynicism and misanthropy is fascism Wanna know how I can tell you’re from Reddit?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:42:26 No. 659159
>>659156 The “Ukrainians” fighting for the Soviet Union were the ones who returned to their Russian roots, the idea of Ukraine is impossible to separate from Nazism because Ukraine itself is a Prussian fiction
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:44:43 No. 659162
>>659159 >The “Ukrainians” fighting for the Soviet Union were the ones who returned to their Russian roots Proof?
>the idea of Ukraine is impossible to separate from Nazism because Ukraine itself is a Prussian fiction Well first off Prussian =/= Nazi. The strongest base of Nazi support was in Bavaria, Hitler was Austrian and much of his inner circle was Bavarian. Second, the Soviet recognition of a distinct Ukrainian nation predates the existence of the Nazi Party.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:46:47 No. 659165
>>658188 I was about to do a honest answer but look at this crap:
>>658188 >Was it because Tito behaved like menshevik nationalist fascist dictator who allied himself with capitalist powers >>658188 You gotta need a bigger one.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:49:18 No. 659167
>>659165 The biggest bait in the thread is here
>>658255 Like yeah sure m8, Tito was just pretending to be a socialist. He spent years working underground in the illegal Yugoslav communist party and then risked his life fighting the Nazis as a prank.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:52:49 No. 659172
>>659167 I guess some morons can't understand it was more like a infight between two positions, the less radical and the more radical.
Stalin didn't want to support the expansion of Yugoslavia and Tito was angered by this.
Stalin was afraid of the nukes, in reality.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 17:55:49 No. 659180
>>659167 If he was an actual socialist he wouldn’t have sold out to the Americans, nor would he have aided fascist uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. He would have aligned himself with Stalin and follow an economic model that worked, rather than let his Ustase tendencies get the better of him
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:00:42 No. 659187
>>659180 >If he was an actual socialist he wouldn’t have sold out to the Americans He didn't, he charted an independent course.
>nor would he have aided fascist uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia Again he didn't. Idk about Czechoslovakia but he initially expressed diplomatic support for Nagy's government and then changed his mind later and endorsed the Soviet intervention.
>rather than let his Ustase tendencies get the better of him Imagine saying that the man who systematically murdered the Ustase and threw 1000 of them down a coal mine had "Ustase tendencies" lmao.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:03:28 No. 659192
>>659180 My knowledge of history reflects none of this happened, but you are free to bring proofs any time.
Not I am a supported of Tito, I am more Stalin-leaning person, not a tankie, but have my preferences on him Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:04:31 No. 659193
>>659187 Yeah he sure charted an independent course by taking out all those IMF loans. Let me let you in on a little secret, in the ear between good and evil there is no “third side”. If you are not standing with the workers, with the Vanguard, then you stand with reaction. It’s not hard. But leave it to someone who sincerely believes in an ideology invented by a video game to indulge in moral relativism
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:10:10 No. 659200
>>659193 That supp8sed 'vanguard' was actively seeking peaceful coexistance lol
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:12:10 No. 659203
>>659193 So was Mao a fake socialist too? His split from the USSR objectively helped the US far more than Tito did. The terminal disease of the vulgar Stalinist brain is a complete inability to distinguish between the misguided and the malicious. It's what leads to objectively absurd statements like saying that Tito had "Ustase tendencies". I wonder how apparent those tendencies were to the actual Ustase as he was killing them?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:14:44 No. 659204
>>659203 Mao was always a Chinese Nationalist, his communism was never anything more than aesthetics and proverbs.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:16:19 No. 659207
>>659203 Wrong again Trot. Mao split with the Soviet Union because it was knee deep in revisionism, brought about by Khruschev the arch-traitor. At the point when the split happened the Soviet Union was rapidly following Trotskyite economic plans and succumbing to capitalism, so China realized it needed to take the reigns as leader of the socialist world, which it remains to this day. Incidentally, Khrushchev’s position was also why Tito sided with the Soviet Union against Hungary eventually, he knew full well the plan was already in motion so it didn’t matter who won
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:18:31 No. 659209
>>659207 China has neve been socialist, it's been a fascist dictatorship since 1911, the differenxe between the KMT and the CPC is abiut the difference between the democrat and reoublican parties
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:22:02 No. 659212
>>659207 >Mao split with the Soviet Union because it was knee deep in revisionism Leaving aside the fact that Khruschev's "revisionism" is greatly exaggerated (note: criticizing Stalin does not make somebody a revisionist), the USSR remained under Khruschev and afterwards the single largest obstacle to imperialism in the world, not to mention the most prolific benefactor of revolutionary and national liberation movements. Mao's split with them objectively weekened the socialist camp and strengthened imperialism, and this was brought to its logical conclusion when he pivoted to the US in the 70s.
>the Soviet Union was rapidly following Trotskyite economic plans and succumbing to capitalism, so China realized it needed to take the reigns as leader of the socialist world, which it remains to this day Sorry I didn't realize that you're actually insane/mentally disabled. This is the only way that somebody could accuse Khruschev's extremely limited reforms of restoring capitalism while thinking that Deng's far more extensive liberalization didn't.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:22:08 No. 659213
>>659209 This is your brain on Titoism
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:25:08 No. 659216
>>659212 Deng made capitalism work for the state: the essence of socialism. Khruschev sold out the state to capital. I shouldn’t need to explain basic concepts to you, but then again you’re an anarchist so I shouldn’t be too surprised. As for the rest of your apologia for a traitor to socialism I’m not even going to bother with it, I think your embrace of revisionism speaks for itself
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:28:49 No. 659221
>>659216 >Khruschev sold out the state to capital. So keeping the entire economy under state control but using profit as a measure of success is selling out the state to capital, but allowing private industry to compose the majority of your economy (while also introducing profit as a metric of success to SOEs) isn't? Deng's reforms included virtually everything Khruschev did plus much more. He let porkies into the party ffs, meanwhile there were no real porkies in the USSR.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:28:59 No. 659222
>>659216 >Dengoid accusing others of revisionisn This is a defense mechanism so strong that Freud should have analyzed you.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 18:51:09 No. 659243
>>659208 Bavaria was mainly rural at the time, and Ruhr even had Red Army at one point. Funny how that works, eh?
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 19:19:11 No. 659259
>>659165 how is that a bait, dude? that's literally how soviets and yugos called each other, lol
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 19:28:27 No. 659263
>>659259 It's bait because only a moron would keep applying these labels today.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 20:28:09 No. 659303
>>659221 the porkie thing seems to have been more caused by jiang ziemin.
plus the whole private sector should make up large portions of gdp also seems to have come from jiang ziemin. Deng meanwhile still wanted the soe sector to play a decent role meanwhile jiang in the other hand just privitized everything
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 20:29:35 No. 659307
>>659303 Even if that's true, it's still a fact that Deng's reforms went well above and beyond what Khruschev did.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 20:41:59 No. 659321
>>659307 I mean true for me tho i dont really think kruschev was a revisionist and more like an idiot, the only revisionist i see is gorbie.
And despite dengs extremeness at least he uh didnt decide to go the political liberalization path of a certain someone
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 03:23:57 No. 659646
>>659216 Ah yes, socialism is when capitalism and the more capitalism you do the more socialist it is as long as there's a state. Dirigisme is truly what Marx intended
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 03:52:57 No. 659667
>>659646 REEEE DIRIGISME IS SOCIALISM.
IF THE GOV DOES STUFF THEN IT IS SOCIALIST. AND IF THE GOV DOES MORE STUFF THE MORE SOCIALIST IT IS. AND IF IT DOES A UUHOLE LOTTA STUFF THEN ITS COMMUNISM
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 13:54:40 No. 660008
>>659667 >dirigisme "State capitalism" sounds stale, so you force the meme of "dirigisme" now, my glowing friend?
Dictatorship of the Proletariat means proletariat is in charge of the country. Meaning, in the final analysis, that under socialism, state does things that benefit the workers first and foremost. Don't fucking care if it's state that does things or not; socialism's state does things in such a way that capitalists cry and workers cheer.
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 14:05:43 No. 660016
>>660012 According to who and per thousands of people please
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 14:07:03 No. 660018
>>659987 Much worse since those imprisoned there were true communists.
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 14:30:35 No. 660039
>>660008 >be state >do things >say it's "on behalf of the workers" wtf I'm socialism now
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 14:41:10 No. 660051
>>660039 every socialist state ever
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 15:49:23 No. 660112
>>660051 tell me oh great megacunt
how would you conduct a socalist state?
sage sage 2021-12-25 (Sat) 16:12:21 No. 660141
>>659259 It's a b8 for the way it is framed.
Nor Tito was a "menshevik nationalist fascists dictator who allied with the west", nor Stalin was a "social-imperialist who behaved like the tsar" (whatever that shit is).
This is a bad faith post, and it should be lock-bumped.
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 22:28:58 No. 660666
>>659987 idk how bad it was but soviets talked about it a lot
Tito: "They love me in America! They shook my hand and offered me a chair!"
(Titoists want to introduce a death penalty by electric chair. They are going buy them from USA)
>2) IN TITOIST TORTURE CHAMBERS "This students had such excellent grades, but now he can't answer any of our questions!"
(Fourty five thousand yugoslavian students suffer in yugoslavian prisons)
>3)IN TITOIST YUGOSLAVIA "Guard this political prisoner carefully. If I recall correctly, he escaped the prison three times during the fascist occupation!"
>4) A replica from Wall Street (Last year, Tito and his sinister henchman Rankovich murdered, imprisoned and tortured more communists than the former burgeois regime of Yugoslavia during 10 years)
The patron of Rankovich: "Now we have our hand in Belgrad!")
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 22:37:10 No. 660677
>>660666 Rankovic is another one that was a bourgeois nationalist. Djilas too. There's a reason these cretins are feted over while the likes of Stalin, Bierut, Ulbricht, Rakosi are endlessly smeared by bourgeois prostitutes.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 00:33:59 No. 660803
>>659212 >note: criticizing Stalin does not make somebody a revisionist Really? Is that what you imagine is the reason people call Kruschev revisionist? You really think the multiple splits with communist parties all over the world happened solely because kornman badmouthed stalin?
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 00:40:53 No. 660808
>>660803 So what exactly did Khruschev do that makes him a revisionist?
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 01:00:52 No. 660832
>>660808 simple he liked corn
all corn fags are revisionists
#ANTI CORN GANG
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 01:01:16 No. 660834
Tito suggested the revival of a concept initially floated by Lenin of a Balkan confederation [Whose capital Tito imagined being either Belgrade or Zagreb] which would effectively be a Balkan-USSR of All of the Yugoslav republics + Albania + Bulgaria + Greece + (Maybe Romania)
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 01:09:54 No. 660839
>>660808 the dictatorship of the whole people and peaceful coexistence
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 01:16:06 No. 660849
>>660839 Peaceful coexistence was little more than a rhetorical tool to relieve pressure on the Soviet bloc. In practice the USSR remained by far the deadliest enemy of imperialism and the greatest benefactor of revolutionary and national liberation movements worldwide. They also continued Stalin's policies of tactical compromises with the West to prevent the outbreak of WW3. The state of the whole people was predicated on the premise that socialism had been constructed in the main, and that antagonistic class relations had more or less ceased to exist. I don't think this is such a far-fetched concept for the postwar USSR, considering that capitalists, kulaks, aristocrats, and landlords had all been liquidated, leaving behind only classes without inherently antagonistic contradictions between them (workers, peasants, arguably bureaucrats).
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 01:18:33 No. 660854
>>660847 That's actually a good critique, but honestly I would argue that Stalin also contributed to this problem by constructing the repressive apparatus that the bureaucrats would later use to shut the workers out of power. Even if Stalin was planning on democratization at the time of his death, purges, censorship, and the faction ban were the tools used by the bureaucrats to retain their grip on the government.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 01:32:13 No. 660873
>>660864 To an extent, but Stalin applied it in such a way as to make serious opposition from within the party a thing of the past. I mean look at your own statistics in that pic, it shows that between 1932 and 1956, the proportion of white collar workers in the party grew from 8 to 51%. The vast majority of that period was during Stalin's administration. Do you seriously think thay this entire transformation took place within 3 years between 1953 and 1956? Clearly much of it happened on Stalin's own watch.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 03:02:44 No. 660939
>>660938 >Socialism with german gastarbeiter characteristics Your cope is tasty to me
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 03:04:51 No. 660940
>>660939 The tastiest cope is tankiechinlets when they call Tito an evil revisionist and then turn around and suck Milosevic's dick for being an anti-imperialist when he destroyed everything Yugoslavia stood for.
My man let Stalin kill all the other Yugoslav party leaders for him so he could take over,, then told him to eat his ass and lil Koba couldn't do jack shit about it.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 03:05:09 No. 660942
>>658188 Trotsky was right
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 03:08:23 No. 660948
>>660940 >Milosevic is at fault for the structural problems of the Yugos Sneed
>Stalin killed all the other Yugoslav leaders The Soviets were barely involved in Yugoslavia during the War
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 03:09:44 No. 660949
>>660677 >everyone that isn't a puppet of Stalin is a b-bourgeois nationalist revisionist opportunist wrecker! Kill em all! Stalin should have been overthrown for murdering Dybenko, Zinoviev, Tukhachevsky, Radek, and every revolutionary who didn't bow to his fragile ego.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 08:38:56 No. 661233
>>661231 Quit shitposting. We get it, you think German Gastarbeiters are cool
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 08:41:09 No. 661236
>>661233 Yugoslavia had a far higher standard of living than the Soviet Union, and actually placed the means of production under worker control.
Seethe.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 08:58:28 No. 661257
>>661236 >millions of guest workers working in Germany and even USSR's bloc countries Yeah, nah. Yugoslavia's level of life was worse than in USSR.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 08:59:25 No. 661259
>>661231 >22 times Any proof?
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 09:05:53 No. 661269
>>660854 >Stalin also contributed to this problem by constructing the repressive apparatus that the bureaucrats would later use to shut the workers out of power Shut the fuck up, retard. You never proved that Stalin repressed 700k people, and your academic historian nonsense is just that, nonsense circle-jerked by academics into being present in every book - without any fucking proof, no corpses, no explanations how it was even physically possible, neither how it didn't fucking impact economics or war in any perceivable way. In short, fuck off.
>>660952 Khruschev wanted subordination, that's for sure. And Khruschev was also the guy who tried to become friendly with Tito, huh, while Stalin was dunking on fascistic Tito. And Brezhnev continued that line of thinking of trying to befriend Yugoslavia.
No fucking wonder both countries had economic problems, huh?
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 11:42:39 No. 661355
>>661231 Free world, tankies, puppet states… Nice Goebbels language. Tito didn't have to ally with fascists because they took power, the likes of Rankovic. Stalin's funeral was thronged with Soviet people, even bourgeois news reports from the time comment on the sheer number of visitors. Tito put his own country's nationalist cause before communism, he was a chauvinist.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 12:14:18 No. 661364
>>661259 Tito's 'assassin' letter is a known fake letter along with Bukharin's "Why do you need my death?". They both come from the words of one of Cornman's assistants and no physical evidence exists of them.
https://stalinism.ru/mifyi-i-falshivki/predsmertnoe-pismo-buharina-esche-odna-antistalinskaya-falshivka.html Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 14:47:21 No. 661526
>>661236 >Yugoslavia had a far higher standard of living than the Soviet Union Who the fuck would care about that. Liberal argumentation.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 15:24:53 No. 661577
>>658188 >>661480 Tito? More like Titty, amirite?
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 15:30:53 No. 661582
>>661364 I remember Agent Kochinski declaring Tito based on livestream when reading this shit on wikipedia. Holy shit wikipedia is trash
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 16:15:46 No. 661633
>>661605 Remember Anon, every historian in the world is actually a paid agent of the bourgeoisie. The only trustworthy sources are Russian conspiracy blogs.
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 16:16:41 No. 661635
>>660666 while the soviets were writing about yugoslavian fasheests, the yugos published a brochure about Red Army crimes in 1945.
Names of some chapters:
>The soviet conception of war >Crimes equal to the fascist ones >About the culture of the soldiers of the Red Army >Russian-Chetnik Union >How much does the soviet soldier cost >The cases of alcoholism >Looting and destruction of national property >A word about Soviet instructors >Soviet attitude towards Yugoslav prisoners and internees >Downplaying the importance of the struggle of the Yugoslav people >Rape of Vojvodina women Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 16:17:13 No. 661636
>>661633 This but unironically unironically
also sociology exists to maintain the system Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 16:18:35 No. 661639
>>661635 Just seems like a bunch of hyperbolic, unproductive shitflinging on all sides. Really seems silly in hindsight,
but not as silly as people who still say and believe such things today. Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 17:03:05 No. 661736
>>661635 So just the usual anti-communist fabrications. Listen to indigenous voices sweetie!
Anonymous 2021-12-26 (Sun) 19:18:52 No. 661892
>>661639 >Just seems like a bunch of hyperbolic, unproductive shitflinging on all sides. Indeed. I've just posted it as an interesting fact.
It's the same shit as stalinist v. trotskyite fights
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 09:35:12 No. 662660
>>661736 Well at least the alcoholism and rapes/rape-murders in liberated territories were real and documented.
The chetnik alliance sound retarded though, can anyone give me a TLDR? I want to laugh.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 14:50:11 No. 662847
>>662581 Wikipedia lol. I just oppose anticommunism in all its forms.
Sabinyak 2021-12-27 (Mon) 20:31:25 No. 663215
>>662581 el violador culero de tito
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 18:14:18 No. 665863
>>662660 >The chetnik alliance sound retarded though, can anyone give me a TLDR? I haven't read the book, but it is true that the Red Army cooperated their actions with Chetniks in the places where the partisans were not present, were weak or where it was just necessary.
The city of Kruševac was liberated by the common forces of 3rd Ukrainian Front and the Chetnik troops under the command of vojvoda Dragutin Keserovich.
On the photos you can see Keserovich with podpolkovnik Pronin and US Army Lieutenant Elsford Kramer on the balcony of hotel Paris.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 19:15:00 No. 665926
>>659987 are there any memoirs or something of "stlainists" who survided Goli Otok?
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 20:17:39 No. 665986
>>658188 >Who was right in this conflict? Tito.
Partly because USSR troops behaved badly in Yugoslavia, to understate it. And because Tito had partisans to back up his words with, he could send Stalin packing.
Also this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/274tvw/titos_threatening_letter_to_joseph_stalin/ Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 22:51:44 No. 666136
>>665926 >>665926 Read these from Vlado Dapcevic. A Montenegrin communist and anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist who was sent to Goli Otok.
https://www.mltranslations.org/serbcroat/dapcevic.htm https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv9n1/dapcevic.htm Made me lose any shred of respect for Tito.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 22:53:55 No. 666138
>>666136 Unfortunately your source isn’t from Agent Kochinski or Reddit so you’ll likely be censored by the radlib anticommunists in control of the site
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 23:22:43 No. 666161
>>666138 Are those radlib anticommunist in the room with us?
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 23:27:08 No. 666165
>>666161 You’re one of them if you’re trying to defend Tito lol
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 23:38:28 No. 666183
>>666180 Yes, anticommunists deserve to be imprisoned, what’s so hard to understand?
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 23:56:08 No. 666192
>>666183 What made Tito an anticommunist?
Anonymous 2021-12-30 (Thu) 00:15:25 No. 666217
Seems the thread was completely derailed into a troll thread.
Anonymous 2021-12-30 (Thu) 00:20:56 No. 666228
>>666192 If you haven’t been reading the thread, he was an Ustase wannabe who split with the Soviets and took American loans and subjected the people to the “freedom” of the market, all so that he could direct the profits towards sabotaging the socialist world and oppressing the Serbian populace, whom he hated as a Croatian ultranationalist.
Anonymous 2021-12-30 (Thu) 23:14:03 No. 667372
>>666261 Imagine unironically believing real socialism involves taking IMF loans and submitting the state to capital
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 00:44:11 No. 667534
Look at how the Central Asian countries ended up with governing bodies comprised in large part by ethnic Russians and ruined environments; look at how the Balkans ended up. It wasn't really Stalin or Tito's faults, but their choices allowed for later issues to become unmanageable. Market socialism should be rejected outright outside of the transitional period, but some kind of more flexible local structures should also be put in place. The question is ultimately, in a period of capitalist encirclement, is completely uniform organization or flexible positive feedback loops (dunno if that's a perfect phrase to get across what I'm saying but that's the only thing I can think to connect it to) more vital.
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 00:56:23 No. 667540
>>658240 >muh employment Employment is a meaningless measure of the well-being of people in a post-capitalist economy. In fact the ultimate goal is an economy that employs as few people as possible. A serious analysis begins at people's general living conditions, not whether or not they're employed.
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 03:42:05 No. 667764
>>667540 >post-capitalist economy Meaningless. There's capitalism and then there's socialism-communism. And a socialist country doesn't allow for mass unemployment like Yugoslavia did.
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 03:57:01 No. 667786
READ HOXHA
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 04:08:57 No. 667796
>>667545 retarded opinion go back to reddit dot com slash r slash feelthebern
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 04:10:50 No. 667799
Why not make a messy concoction of all ideologies?
Sage !61KGLATVW. 2022-01-13 (Thu) 00:39:29 No. 688999
>>658301 A good post. How do you feel about inter-communalism?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:09:03 No. 691095
>>658215 >Tito, of course. While Stalin was restoring capitalism with his PMC beuraucratic party, Tito introduced worker-control of workspaces, literally a more fundamental thing of socialism that the USSR never achieved because of "muh productive forces muh industry". "Muh worker controlled faggots"
I suppose socialism is when the workers of Boeing or Lockheed Martin own and control their workplaces
Now that they own directly their workplace they'll cheer and lobby for more wars
Worker ownership doesn't have to be cuck "muh cooperatives" it can be State owned (ie. by the people) actually pursuing communist interests instead of Tito's retarded socialism which amounted to taking as many IMF loans until the imperialists declared them bankrupt and plunged them into civil war
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:13:41 No. 691105
>>690970 First comment on the video "Tito and Regan were very good friends".
Says it all lol.
>"liberated" by the red army Nice nazism
see, the difference is the Red Army did liberate death camps like auschwitz, while Tito copied them and shoved communists in them.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:16:55 No. 691109
>>691105 As they say, scratch a Croat, find a Kraut. Unsurprising that Tito learned from his Ustase masters
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:20:01 No. 691113
>>691105 >see, the difference is the Red Army did liberate death camps like auschwitz, while Tito copied them and shoved communists in them Tito built gulags and put Stalinists there, while Stalin built gulags and put Titoists there. Almost like it was a pointless sectarian dispute that benefitted nobody.
>>691109 I seriously have to wonder if you people are for real. For a supposed Ustase sympathizer Tito sure killed a lot of them, and he sure is popular in Serbia for an alleged sympathizer with people who tried to genocide the Serbs.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:23:40 No. 691119
>>691113 Nazis in Germany had no problem slaughtering their own when they felt in the mood, just look at the Night of Long Knives and other such purges. Why wouldn't their Croatian counterparts act the same way? An ideology of psychopaths is going to attract psychopaths who will act on their impulses the first chance they get, and Tito was no exception. He only "opposed" the Ustase so that he wouldn't have any competition to his rule, once fully in power he had no problem enacting ethnic cleansing against the Serbian population, who were by and large in favor of Communism. As for his "popularity" in Serbia, that just goes to show the extent of Titoist brainwashing and propaganda, it still infests the minds of even those he wanted to exterminate.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:24:22 No. 691121
>>691113 Respectfully, quit this crap. Yugoslavia fundamentally had the same problems it accused the USSR of, but was also unemployment, with remittances from migrant labor going into its economy.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:25:42 No. 691123
>>691113 >Tito built gulags and put Stalinists there, while Stalin built gulags and put Titoists there. Almost like it was a pointless sectarian dispute that benefitted nobody Titoists deserve to be impaled and left to rot in the sun, having their labor be used to benefit the state is a mercy
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:39:37 No. 691140
>>691121 >Yugoslavia fundamentally had the same problems it accused the USSR of, but was also unemployment, with remittances from migrant labor going into its economy. Absolutely, but that doesn't mean Tito was an "Ustase sympathizer" lmao.
>>691119 >Nazis in Germany had no problem slaughtering their own when they felt in the mood, just look at the Night of Long Knives and other such purges. Tito's killing of the Ustase wasn't an internal party purge. His partisans were literally aligned with the Comintern and USSR, he had been a communist since well before the war. He led a communist insurgency which fought the Nazi occupation and the Ustase collaborators, and successfully defeated them.
>once fully in power he had no problem enacting ethnic cleansing against the Serbian population Then why is he massively popular in Serbia? Polls show that Serbs rank him as the best leader in their history.
https://balkaninsight.com/2016/11/16/vucic-still-less-popular-than-tito-11-16-2016/ Moreover Croatia is literally the only ex-Yugo state where the breakup of Yugoslavia is not viewed in a negative way by most people.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210866/balkans-harm-yugoslavia-breakup.aspx Idk about you, but I think it's super weird that a supposed Croation nationalist who wants to genocide Serbs would be popular in Serbia and unpopular in Croatia. I think it's also pretty weird that in the 40 years he ran the country the Serbs remained un-genocided and their population continued to grow.
>As for his "popularity" in Serbia, that just goes to show the extent of Titoist brainwashing and propaganda Holy shit this is delusional. Propaganda doesn't work on people who are supposedly "exterminating" lmao. How tf are you going to get somebody to support you while you're killing them? One wonders why Hitler didn't simply use propaganda on the Jews to make them like him.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:48:52 No. 691145
>>691140 Yeah, the whole Ustashe shit is irrelevant to why Yugo stans whi hate the USSR are hot garbage. Tito was likely not a closet anticommunist, but I bet money that FDRY anti-USSR people are
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:52:19 No. 691150
>>667540 >Yugoslavia had high unemployment due to their brain dead economic system >this was seen as a big problem by contemporaries >"well akchually… employment is meaningless!!!" holy cope.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:53:00 No. 691151
>>691145 >Tito was likely not a closet anticommunist, but I bet money that FDRY anti-USSR people are I think it's more of a case of being babby-leftists. Similar to Rojava or Catalonia, Yugoslavia is one of the "safe" socialist experiments to like, and doing so requires one to overcome less propaganda than liking the USSR. Support for market socialism also comes from a limited knowledge of theory. At least this is my experience, I was for a time a major Yugo-stan when I was just getting into Marxism, but further study made me realize the flaws of their system, the superior merits of the Soviet model, and the futility of the geopolitical feud between the two countries.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 17:56:14 No. 691158
>>691151 The ComInform conducted a struggle no different to that waged by the Bolsheviks against the second international opportunists.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 18:00:23 No. 691159
>>691158 >The ComInform conducted a struggle no different to that waged by the Bolsheviks against the second international opportunists. Oh really? When did Yugoslavia endorse socialist participation in an imperialist world war? Or is wanting the USSR to respect their sovereignty and national independence a crime in and of itself? Considering that Yugoslavia wasn't the only country to break with the Soviets over this exact issue (China and Albania did the same), it's pretty clear that there was a pattern to Soviet relations with other socialist countries that many found chauvinistic and alienating.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 18:09:31 No. 691168
>>691159 The Titoists were opportunists who sided with the marshal plan and NATO imperialism against the people's republics and USSR. Enormous funds poured into Yugoslavia and the nascent socialist economy ended up being marketised. Chauvinism towards Albanians and other nationalities increased.
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/1951/trotsky-tito/ch05.htm China and Albania broke with the USSR because it itself became dominated by revisionists who conducted a coup and purge against Marxist-Leninists. During the ComInform ("Stalinist" if you like) period Albania was firmly allied with the USSR.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 18:20:36 No. 691184
>>691168 >The Titoists were opportunists who sided with the marshal plan and NATO imperialism against the people's republics and USSR. And why do you think they did that Anon? Let's use some dialectical reasoning here. Why would a person like Tito, who had risked his life not only fighting Nazis during the war, but acting as an organizer for the illegal Yugoslav communist party for decades beforehand, suddenly break from the USSR? Could it have something to do with the Soviets chauvinistically imposing their policies on their supposedly "fraternal" socialist countries? Again, keep in mind that Yugoslavia wasn't the only country to break with Moscow over this issue. Dialectics demands that we view every action also as a reaction and vice versa. The Tito-Stalin split didn't come from nothing, and it certainly didn't happen because Tito woke up one day and decided "Hmmm, today I will betray communism." It was a response to legitimate grievances the Yugos had with Moscow, and although I will agree it was a shortsighted and mistaken response, it was hardly a betrayal of the magnitude committed by the Second international. In terms of its actual effect on the course of events in the following decades it was negligible, the Sino-Soviet split was FAR more destructive to the socialist cause. Shit, at least Tito took Yugoslavia down a neutral path instead of allying with the West like Mao and Deng did.
>China and Albania broke with the USSR because it itself became dominated by revisionists who conducted a coup and purge against Marxist-Leninists. They also specifically cited Soviet "Great Power chauvinism" as one of the reasons for their departure. Iirc Mao even criticized the Soviets for this behavior during the split with Yugoslavia.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 18:44:20 No. 691220
>>691184 Because he was an opportunist. What's so complicated? It's like when Trots go "b-b-but Trotsky was the commissar for war so he must have been innocent". Or similarly with Khrushchev, that he was a commissar during the war so he must have been genuine. Doesn't make them infallible or prevent them from going off course. Tito's bureaucratic clique wanted to pursue nationalist interests over world communism. Yugoslavia was propped up throughout the cold war as a nice harmless example of "independence", with plenty of slave laborers sent to west Germany, and rife nationalism. Yugoslav neutrality was defacto pro-NATO, especially in the critical years of 1948-1953. Similarly, China and Albania were right to split with the USSR when Khrushchevite bureaucratism began deforming the USSR.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 19:03:47 No. 691243
>>691220 >Because he was an opportunist Christ this such a smoothbrained explanation. Your answer to the question of "Why did the Tito-Stalin split happen?" is basically "Because Tito was bad." Your analysis is literally as shallow as neocons explaining the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism by saying that "they hate our freedom." The reality is that liberation of Eastern Europe left the USSR in a naturally hegemonic position over the countries it occupied, and the pressures of the early Cold War compelled them to make full use of this position to their interests, which meant subordinating the interests of the other socialist countries to their own. This of course created a contradictions between the USSR and it allies, but Yugoslavia was one of the few socialist countries actually in a position to act on this due to the absence of Soviet troops. Thus they split because they had means and motive. The other two countries in a position to do so were China (due to its size and military might relative to the USSR) and Albania (due to its geographic isolation from the rest of the Warsaw Pact). Surprise surprise, these two also split for the exact same reason. For supposedly being the true Marxists, self described anti-revisionists often seem utterly incapable of dialectical reasoning or materialist analysis, instead turning to what amount to moralistic, idealist condemnation of people they don't like. You might as well replace terms like "revisionism" and "opportunism" with "sinner."
>Yugoslav neutrality was defacto pro-NATO By that logic so was Albania and China's. In China's case it was de jure pro-NATO.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 19:12:08 No. 691247
>>691243 It was because Tito's clique wanted to gain at the expense of the other ComInform states. Economic factors are always paramount, and the NATO warmongers did everything they could to encourage a split and pumped in money.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/01.htm China's split under Mao was against Khrushchevism and gained the respect of communists and workers the world over, it was only in the late 1970s that it began cosying up to America.
Albania never remotely did that.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 19:15:09 No. 691252
>>659037 >>659038 both anons are correct, its a complicated issue. also further complicated by the fact that the nation-state is no longer a sensible endgame for national autonomy anyway and is merely the form in which nations are subjugated to international capital
huey newtons intercommunalism is sort of a whacky concept but it does go a long way to at least identify a unique development
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 19:49:38 No. 691301
>>691247 >It was because Tito's clique wanted to gain at the expense of the other ComInform states. Again, your explanation is just that Tito was bad because he was bad. Moreover there's more evidence to actually show that it was the USSR profiting at the expense of other cominform states. It was the Soviets who were extracting huge reparations from former-Axis countries, literally punishing the proles for the actions of governments over which they had no control.
>China's split under Mao was against Khrushchevism and gained the respect of communists and workers the world over Mao explicitly cited Soviet chauvinism as a reason for his split, so clearly it's not so unbelievable that this chauvinism was also present in regards to Yugoslavia. Also Maoists and pro-Chinese communists remained a minority. Pro-Soviet movements remained dominant in basically every socialist country save for Albania, and most communist movements abroad sided with the Soviets.
>it was only in the late 1970s that it began cosying up to America Oh so that makes it okay then? Honestly it's ridiculous to throw a fit about Tito splitting with the Soviets and call it a "de facto pro-NATO policy" while in the same breath justifying China's split. China was a far more powerful and strategically important country, their departure from the Soviet camp was a far greater blow to the chances of socialism defeating the US in the Cold War. It also caused greater harm to the communist movement outside of the socialist countries, since unlike the Tito-Stalin split it actually led to significant splits within communist parties.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:35:43 No. 691360
>>691301 No, it's that he deliberately chose to pursue a bourgeois capitalist road. It's not a great mystery; it happened for the same reason the Khrushchevites did. Bureaucratism, and the consequent revisionism arising from it. The construction of socialism necessarily means a loss of priviledge for the bourgeois elements and bureaucrats.
The USSR needed the reparations for the damage inflicted on it during the war. It suffered far more damage, most importantly to its advanced areas in the western areas of the country. Many of the Axis states had gained from the plunder of the USSR in 1941-1945 and it was only correct that it receive compensation for its heavy losses.
Mao raised the banner of struggle against the Khrushchevite USSR and the Sino-Soviet split was the fault of those in the USSR who deliberately pursued an anti-proletarian path and acted belligerently towards China/Albania, it was unfortunate but a correct choice. Unity with the enemies of Marxism is wrong and Hoxha was right to criticise them in Moscow, bravely and openly when cowards stayed quiet. Hoxha later was also correct to criticise the Chinese in the late 70s.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:38:33 No. 691365
>>658188 The history of Soviet-Yugoslav relations is a cautionary tale. I don't hate Tito or Stalin. Both were fundamentally good leaders whose countries were brought into conflict more by circumstance than some intractable ideological divide. The Soviets stood for a unified world socialist alliance and prioritized military readiness in the event of western aggression. The Yugoslavs valued self-determination and were early adopters of the notion that poverty is not socialism.
And yet, despite these noble aims and rational objectives, both nations were reduced to ruin in the end. Why do you suppose that is? If one asks your average leftypol autist they'll throw around a bunch of ideological jargon about revisionism or social-imperialism and allege it was all this great man or that one who actively chose to guide history along the path it took towards the unfathomable destruction and misery which befell all of Eastern Europe in the 1990s.
The fact of the matter is the Soviets and Yugoslavs and every other socialist state of the 20th century shared a common destiny whether they realized it or not. All were marked for destruction by NATO sooner or later. All made strategic errors that undermined the collective struggle. Nobody was blameless. Nobody was spared. Nobody but you retards on this website really cares to go on litigating it either.
Ask a modern KPRF member or Balkan revolutionary how they feel about one another. Ask an elder who fought with Tito's partisans or the red army and lived to see the two forces nearly come to blows. Do they care now? Are they concerned with which corpse of a long-dead idol needs to be more highly venerated? They are each happy to have lived for a time free from the tyranny of fascism. They are each saddened by what has become of their homelands.
Which leads me to my main point:
The USSR was overbearing towards it allies. It could not have been otherwise. A nation does not endure losses like those sustained in WWII and reckon for the first time in history with the possibility of nuclear ahnilation only to take a relaxed approach towards national security going forward. If that means leaving allies in a difficult situation, so be it. There was a war in Korea to consider. There were shortages at home and all the industry which had been earned through 15 years of unprecedented blood, sweat and toil had been smashed in an instant by fascist invaders. In such circumstances, there was no time to consider investing in Yugoslavia's bright socialist future any more than East Germany's or Poland's or Romania's or the rest. And unlike those countries, Yugoslavia was not content to just work hard and wait for conditions to improve. They had been their own liberators, they told themselves. They were freed and achieved socialism by their own efforts. Why should they be beholden to Moscow's interests? There were many doubts about accepting Marshall plan aid and doing business with the west. How could there not be? They watched the west finance Hitler just like everyone else. They were attacked mere months before the Soviets and hadn't even committed the unforgivable sin of being socialist up to that point– merely possessing resources and being independent. This drove home an important lesson that every Yugoslav knew well already: the strong do as they please and the weak suffer what they must. They knew it to be true in Ottoman times. They thought they could mitigate it by joining together afterword across linguistic and ethnic lines into a supernation beholden to nobody but themselves. They couldn't have foreseen how this would be used a wedge against them one day. For almost half a century they had it all. Not just worker's control of the means of production but access to foreign markets too: the pleasures of the west and the dignity of the east. Yugoslavs, not entirely incorrectly, judged themselves to be better practitioners of socialism than those who saw it as a war to end all wars. That was doubly true when it came to their neighbors the Albanians who were so insanely dogmatic that they refused to live in a world without comrade Stalin. His corpse might be lying in state, said Hoxha, but his glorious contributions to the immortal science shall never be erased from the hearts and minds of men. Was Tito wrong to take exception with this kind of thinking, watching as the Albanians squabbled with the new Soviet leadership and then the Chinese and eventually themselves? There was no keeping track of all the enemies you were supposed to have as a governing socialist party during those days. Anarchists and Trotskyites, social democrats and fascists, capitalists and their legions of wreckers sent to every country to help kill you and take your stuff. And they were real. That's the thing. The CIA really was everywhere. It still fucking is. They may not have instigated the Yugoslav-Soviet divide but they were more than happy to play ceaselessly upon it for years, doing everything in their considerable power to estrange both countries from one another and ensure the international proletarian revolution remains this strange foreign thing, not a threat at home.
They did it. There is no Soviet Union now. There is no Yugoslavia. Deranged monsters coined a new word to describe just how badly they fucked up these places: balkanization. And they go on trying to do it to anyone they don't like to this day.
So yeah, being a Stalinist was liable to get you thrown in Goli Otok. Sympathy towards a bunch of greedy former Chetniks and Ustaše wasn't exactly going to win you friends among the Bolsheviks. But I don't really care how it was viewed then. We are living now in the aftermath of it all. What matters now are the consequences of the split and they are not pretty. Women of both nations work brothels in Amsterdam now. The men are hooked on drugs. Their children brainwashed by fascists. Was there anything Tito or Stalin could have done differently to percent this from being so? Could they have somehow made their people less scarred by history? Less fearful of the other? Were they supposed to live forever and purge every traitor until the end of time? Somehow catch up to the west with all its centuries worth of imperial plunder and strike the final blow together despite all the material conditions acting upon them and their governments and their people?
It was material conditions all along. It always is. This is the refrain of all Marxists since Marx himself. Do not go seeking your answers in personalities and ideas and impressive-sounding academic phrases.
The Yugoslav-Soviet split and the eventual collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe more generally was the consequence of under-developed productive forces, numerous cunning enemies, dissension within the worker's camp and an inability for systems of governance to outlive a handful of exceptional individuals who were, for all their merits, still just pieces in a great game, just as we all are to this day.
Pictured: Tito and Stalin side by side atop the Lenin Mausoleum in 1945, celebrating the victory over fascism
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:41:03 No. 691372
Everything the USSR under Stalin gets falsely accused of being (bureaucratic, nationalistic, a police state, anti-revolutionary, pro-imperialism) actually applies to Titoite Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent the USSR post-1956.
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.postww2/bland-cominform.pdf the peaceful growing over of capitalism into socialism. In the conditions obtaining in Yugoslavia, where individual peasant farming predominates, where the land is not nationalised, where there is private property in land, and where land can be bought and sold, where much of the land is concentrated in the hands of kulaks, and where hired labour is employed — in such conditions there can be no question of glossing over class struggle and of reconciling class contradictions without by so doing disarming theParty. The leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party, by affirming that the peasantry is ‘the most stable foundation of the Yugoslav state’, are departing from the Marxist-Leninist path and are taking the path of a populist kulak party. Lenin taught that the proletariat, as the ‘only class in contemporary society which is revolutionary to the end… must be the leader in the struggle… of all working people and the exploited against the oppressors and exploiters”.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:41:53 No. 691373
>>691365 >The Yugoslavs valued self-determination and were early adopters of the notion that poverty is not socialism Lmao, and the USSR did think poverty was socialism yes?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:46:39 No. 691380
>>691373 I'm really glad I typed all that out so you could miss my point entirely and ask the most retarded question possible.
Kindly commit suicide at your nearest convenience. Jesus fucking Christ this website is retarded.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:47:41 No. 691384
>>691365 >But I don't really care how it was viewed then You should, because you'll repeat the same mistakes with your "both sides" attitude and portraying the Soviet side as mistaken in the conflict.
Also funny that you talk about Albania not living without Stalin when it's Yugoslavia that imploded the moment the strongman died.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:58:54 No. 691397
https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/TitoiteDeathCamp.pdf DEATH CAMP IN TITOITEYUGOSLAVIA
In a article headlined “Goli Otok—a Death Camp”,
the Albanian newspaper “Zeri I Poppulit” describes the
horrible life in this camp of Yugoslav political prisoners
who had opposed the fascist Tito clique.
“The death camps at Dachau, Buchenwald and
Oswencim have been eliminated,” reads the article,
“but similar camps have been set up at Makronisos, Goli
Otok and other places. The Titoites began building a
large concentration camp for political prisoners on the
island of Goli Otok in the first six months of 1949.
Barracks were built there, high walls and a system of
barbed wire fences and sentry posts were established.
“In June last year this camp received its first batch
of prisoners: Communists and patriots from all parts of
the country. Everything was done secretly. Some time
later the number of prisoners—sentenced to various
terms of imprisonment ranging from 2 to 20 years—was
increased to 4,500.
“In this camp”, writes the paper, “forced labour
lasts 12 hours a day. No exception is made either for
those who suffer from tuberculosis or from injuries
received during torture, Titoite sadism in the Goli Otok
camp has reached appalling forms. There are concrete
cells where prisoners are made to stand for several days
on end.
“There are cells filled with water up to the neck of
the prisoners; in some cells a hot and cold blast is
introduced alternately until the prisoners lose
consciousness. Wide use is made of torture by
electricity. When, after two weeks of such torment, the
prisoners are at the point of death, they are put into
cattle sheds which bear the name of ‘hospitals’, where
there are neither doctors nor nurses. The sick have to
tend one another without medicines. None of those put
in these ‘hospitals’ have ever returned to their fellow
prisoners. By the end of October 1949,—after five
months—this camp had more than 200 graves.
“Savo Zaric, scientist and outstanding son of the
people of Montenegro, perished in this camp. In these
camps also languish Zujevic, Hebrang, Ljumovic,
Radovan Zogovic, Stanojevic—heroes of the Yugoslav
people—and thousands more of the best sons of the
people of Yugoslavia.
“The people of Yugoslavia”, writes the newspaper in
conclusion—“headed by the Communists who have
remained loyal to Marxism-Leninism—are intensifying
their resistance. They will destroy the spies and Titoite
agents in their country. They will free their country
from the Tito-Rankovic gang.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 21:00:50 No. 691399
>>691360 >No, it's that he deliberately chose to pursue a bourgeois capitalist road. He didn't. Yugoslavia's market socialist model had many flaws and was inferior to the Soviet system, but it wasn't capitalist, at least not fully. For one thing capitalist forms of exploitation like wage labour did not predominate. I would consider that to be a definitive feature of capitalism. Much like China during its reform period, the Yugoslav government also engaged in extensive central planning within which its market sector was constrained.
>The USSR needed the reparations for the damage inflicted on it during the war. Not an unreasonable position, but it still constitutes the Soviets profiting from the direct exploitation of the countries under their influence. It's pretty ridiculous to accuse the Yugoslavians of wanting to profit at the expense of the rest of the Cominform when the Soviets were literally packing up German/Hungarian/Romanian factories and shipping them East.
>split was the fault of those in the USSR who deliberately pursued an anti-proletarian path and acted belligerently towards China/Albania The same is true of Yugoslavia.
>it was unfortunate but a correct choice No choice which aids in the victory of imperialism is the correct choice, and China's departure from the Soviet camp did just that.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 21:03:31 No. 691401
>>691399 Yugoslavia always had mass unemployment unlike any other socialist country.
Yugoslavia's plan for rebuilding involved shipping its workers to the FRG to slave away for the Krupps while taking AMerican investment. Very different to the ComInform states having to rebuild by their own labour, also during this period the USSR wasn't the belligerent one and its struggle was waged on Marxist-Leninist grounds. It was part of the general struggle waged from 1948-1952 against revisionists in the USSR, before Stalin's poisoning.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 21:18:12 No. 691433
>>691365 Top tier post Anon. Vulgar campists BTFO.
>>691401 >Yugoslavia always had mass unemployment unlike any other socialist country. >Yugoslavia's plan for rebuilding involved shipping its workers to the FRG to slave away for the Krupps while taking AMerican investment.
Yeah, I agree that was a shit policy, but its entirely beside the issues at play in the split. Iirc Yugoslavia didn't even adopt their market socialist system until the 50s, and had Soviet style central planning until then.
>the USSR wasn't the belligerent one I would say that demanding the Yugoslavs abandon aid to the KKE and accept a fascist NATO state on their Southern border is pretty belligerent.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:13:07 No. 691564
>>691433 It was the Titoites who blocked aid to Yugoslavia, it still went through Albania. Zachariadis, a great Greek communist leader who got punished by the Khrushchevites for opposing the coup, said this:
https://espressostalinist.com/2012/07/02/nikos-zahariadis-tito-cliques-stab-in-the-back-to-peoples-democratic-greece/ Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:22:03 No. 691575
>>691564 >It was the Titoites who blocked aid to [Greece] That's bullshit. Stalin agreed to cede Greece to British control in the percentages agreement, and demanded that Tito cease sending them support. The aid only stopped once the KKE declared for the USSR in the split.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:28:58 No. 691583
>>691575 "Percentages agreement" is about as real as the "secret protocols" of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact. Nobody stuck by it and Soviet aid was going through Yugoslavia. USSR also sheltered the defeated Greek communists. Did the Titoites? No and the fact they immediately cut off aid to the Greeks says it all.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:03:16 No. 691725
>>691723 >Missing the point entirely NTA, but calling out hypocrisy when one sees it is not complaining about what meanies the titoites are.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:06:19 No. 691728
>>691583 >The insurgents were demoralised by the bitter split between Stalin and Tito.[15] In June 1948, the Soviet Union and its satellites broke off relations with Tito. In one of the meetings held in the Kremlin with Yugoslav representatives, during the Soviet-Yugoslav crisis >Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter from the years of the occupation. The KKE thus had to choose between its loyalty to the Soviet Union and its relations with its closest ally. After some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Nikolaos Zachariadis, chose to follow the Soviet Union. In January 1949, Vafiadis himself was accused of "Titoism" and removed from his political and military positions, to be replaced by Zachariadis. >After a year of increasing acrimony, Tito closed the Yugoslav border to the DSE in July 1949, and disbanded its camps inside Yugoslavia. The DSE was still able to use Albanian border territories, a poor alternative. Within the Greek Communist Party, the split with Tito also sparked a witch hunt for "Titoites" that demoralised and disorganised the ranks of the DSE and sapped support for the KKE in urban areas. >Almost 100,000 ELAS fighters and Communist sympathizers serving in DSE ranks were imprisoned, exiled, or executed. That deprived the DSE of the principal force still able to support its fight. According to some historians,[citation needed] the KKE's major supporter and supplier had always been Tito, and it was the rift between Tito and the KKE that marked the real demise of the party's efforts to assert power. Yep, that one's going in the cringe compilation.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you Greek.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:10:52 No. 691731
>>691723 The gulags were not extermination camps. People labor for redemption in gulags, extermination camps are just what fascists use
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:14:18 No. 691735
>>691731 t. Yagoda
The Nazis worked people to death too. Just because you kill them through overwork doesn't mean it's not extermination.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:19:35 No. 691742
>>691735 They gave gulag residents enough work that could reasonably be acquired, if they die from that then that’s just a lack of effort
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:21:18 No. 691746
>>691735 The highest death rate in a Gulag, occurring during the years of the Great Patriotic War, was 4-5% per annum. If they were death camps, they did a really bad job at it
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:23:03 No. 691752
>>691742 Kek. Now you're not even trying.
Only a few hundred people died on Goli Otok during its entire service as a political prison. That's nothing compared to Stalinist work projects.
> A total of approximately 16,000[9][10] political prisoners served there, of which between 400[11] and 600[5][12] died on the island. Other sources, largely based on various individual statements, claim almost 4,000 prisoners died in the camp. >Operational1949–1956 for political prisoners Meanwhile the Yagoda canal:
>The canal was constructed by forced labor of gulag inmates. Beginning and ending with a labor force of 126,000, between 12,000 and 25,000 laborers died according to official records >Construction began1931 >Date of first use2 August 1933 Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:25:17 No. 691756
>>691752 >glowiepedia posting I know that glowiepedia is a meme at best, but come on. This is low effort as all hell and doesn’t cut the mustard. If you can’t go into the citations and pull out the information directly, you’re not worth our time.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:27:48 No. 691758
>>691756 Yeah, anticommies would totally have an interest in minimizing the death toll in a communist death camp of a country they destroyed. :^)
This hypocrisy holds no weight and is a complete non-starter. Tito should have just executed the Stalinists instead of letting the clowns in charge of Goli Otok run their little games there, and he still would have had far cleaner hands than Stalin and his lackeys.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:31:24 No. 691765
>>691758 This level of deflection is a cope
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 12:15:56 No. 692298
>>691758 >Tito should have just executed the Stalinists Hitler moment.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 16:36:59 No. 692543
>>692304 >deaths of communists The Greeks?
Not Yugoslavia's problem.
Unique IPs: 96